On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 10:35 +0100, Ying Yi wrote: > Thanks very much for your email. Will gcc add the optimization support > in the future (method 1)? For method 2, if abs accept short/char, may > I give the function names as sabs and qabs? Gcc does already have cabs > as complex abs, doesn't it?
The function names I gave are mostly standard library names, specified, by ISO C, POSIX, GNU libc, or whatever. New functions sabs and qabs would not be standard in that sense, and may conflict with user code, which may be undesirable. Names like __builtin_sabs and __builtin_qabs would be better from that point of view. The builtins.def file has a number of different ways of defining builtin functions depending on which command line options should enable/disable them, and whether or not __builtin should be prepended. -- Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.specifix.com
